Mau maus ranks were swelled by usually unsophisticated and illiterate hoi pollois who were unlearned about the modern economy to be in a position to plunder any wealth. Their only goal was to drive the white man out of their land. The people who plundered the wealth were the sons of British collaborators who were lucky enough to attend British schools in Kenya and the UK. Most of the mau mau remnants actually live in grinding poverty in Kenya up to this day. The elder Kenyatta fell somewhere in between. While in the company of his tribal compatriots, he was vehemently critical of the continued British presence in Kenya; but never missed an opportunity to appease the colonialists if he thought it would serve him well. And the phrase you are looking for is "Mzungu bwanas".

I beg to differ. Jomo Kenyatta was not a leader of the Mau-Mau, he was the president of the Kenyan African Union(KAU)a political party. Kenyatta was actually known to admonish the violence of the Mau Mau and instead opted for a more constitutional approach to gaining self-governance from the British. He campaigned for more African representation in the Legistlative Council(Legco) for example. When the British government declared a state of emergency due to the Mau Mau nuisance, they saw it as a chance to arrest Kenyatta along with the Mau Mau leaders to 'dim his star'. He still went on to become president of Kenya after his release.

Violence 'is not in the genes' and Uhuru is in the predicament he is in right now because of his own choices and actions. Don't try and make it hereditary. The same generalizations are what lead to tribalism and racism if spread out high and wide enough to encompass whole groups of people.

Uhuru's father, Jomo Kenyatta, was the leader of the Mau Mau gangs, that plundered & pillaged Colonial Kenya, in the mid/late fifties & early sixties, before Kenya won Uhuru (freedom), from the Mussungu Bawanas (British masters).

So it should come as no surprise, where he (Uhuru), gets his violent genes/traits from..

The ICC should not be a powerful force. Would anyone want a powerful force over us? But the threat of possibly ending up in from of the ICC might make some leaders act a little better, so it is probably a good thing.
Is it a good value for money spent is another issue.
I think the ICC is seen by the third world as biased against them.
I would be surprised indeed to wake up and read the headline "Economist editors called into questioning for supporting the Bush wars, Bush facing 500,000 counts of premeditated homicide."

At large, ICC is wastage of money, time and resources; they convicted 5 or so people in 6 years; and none of them was brought to justice as they rely on sloppy corrupt governments to do the execution part. And being a law student, I would say the current structure of International Criminal will never be adequate to deal with such matters.

BTW, it should be pointed out that what was passed by Parliament was not a bill but a motion to withdraw from the ICC. That obligates the AG to table a bill that, if passed, would repeal the Act of Parliament that domesticated the Rome Treaty (the International Crimes Act). The AG is yet to do so, and he can actually refuse to do so, though though not without the outpouring of vitriol from Legislators. But in this case, he will be quickly compelled to do so because the Vice president has said the bill is "Government business" despite that the motion was proposed by a backbencher. Interesting times ahead in 2011.

Sometimes I get the impression that your contributions are more motivated by the desire to spam readers with (unpaid for) ads about your site than anything else, but I think this time you've made some valid points. The political class appears to be surprised by the possibility that for the first time, they might be held to account for the things they do. And I think thats why most Kenyans support the ICC. Its not because they like it per se; ICC seems pre-occupied by atrocities committed by people from you know where, and in different circumstances, this might have counted against them. But in this case, most people think that the end justify the means, primarily because very few trust the local options. Patriotism Isn't enough this time around, apparently.

The Higher Echelons of the Political Class in Kenya (of which number have been trapped like Rabbits in the ICC's headlights) have been operating in a Bubble for Many Years, where the Interests of the Electorate were hardly of any significance and taken care of once every 5 Years withan average Pay Out of 1 US Dollar and 50 cents. This has bred a breathtaking degree of Complacency which found it's expression in a call for a Harambee for the Defence Fund of the 6. It is ironic that it took an Argentine Sherriff from the ICC to prick the Bubble. We exist in a New Normal in Kenya ( There has been a Communications Revolution) and Ocampo with his Live Streams and Podcasts is proving that in the Land of the Blind The One Eyed Man is King. That One Eyed Man is Ocampo. Aly-khan Satchu http/:www.rich.co.ke The Issue at the Hague will be twin sided. Will both Defences be permitted to establish that they were part of a chain of Command? Have Both Principals been given Immunity because even an Imbecile can see that Muthaura (for example) takes Minutes. It's all Fluid but finally we have a Process and that's a big net Gain. The Political Class continues to operate as if it can shape Opinion. It cannot anymore, in this Instance.